Standing Committee F

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Clause 66 - Display of Royal Arms at courts

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 275, in page 57, line 31, leave out from 'after' to end of line 32 and insert '30 March 2000'.
 The amendment is an attempt to get to grips with the time scale in which the provision may operate. In one of last week's sittings the Minister made it quite clear, in response to a question from me, that it was envisaged that some central provisions of the Bill would be in operation before devolution. We were left in no doubt about that. A question therefore arises. When will the recommendations based on the review body's opinions, and set out in the Bill, be carried out? We need to be precise about when clause 66 will come into operation. 
 It is remarkable that, in the Northern Ireland context, the matters of great substance that have been dealt with in the past two and a half weeks have not grabbed the imagination, but the business of symbols is all that is required for interest to arise with great alacrity. It is an old road that we travel. We have travelled it before with other legislation, and we shall travel it again when the Bill is implemented and when the criminal justice measures become operative in their totality. I agree with the Minister that even after the initial elements of the Bill are established—those relating to such crucial matters as the district policing partnership and its role it will be a considerable time before devolution takes place. 
 For that reason, some provisions of the Bill will be in force while other substantive provisions are not yet operative. The changes in the use of symbols will be dependent on a day, and I suppose that there is a choice of three possible dates: the date on which the recommendations of the review body became public; the date or dates when recommendations and some provisions of the Bill become operative; or the date on which devolution takes place. We can take our pick of those, but the question needs to be cleared up. It is and will be a matter of deep and genuine concern in the north of Ireland—symbols always are. The amendment takes probably the most sensible approach in that the new process would start without undue delay. It is the most public manifestation of the new dispensation in relation to the process of justice. 
 I have discussed the matter with many people, including Unionists, nationalists, and those of no ideology—as if that ever were the case in the north of Ireland—and I regard the views that I have heard as genuine and sincere. However, the subject poses a 
 fundamental question, touched on last week by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which will not be answered until certain questions are asked. What is the Government's attitude towards Northern Ireland? Is it a last residue of colonialism? That was the question posed by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. Has there been a fundamental change based on the Good Friday agreement? Let us not forget that the criminal justice review stemmed from the Good Friday agreement. Is Northern Ireland some sort of strange, semi-detached place, detached from anything and everything, in limbo and without a place of rest until these questions are eventually decided? 
 I shall not make any pejorative judgment on those three alternatives, but the sooner that the recommendations of the criminal justice review body are seen to be implemented, the better chance there will be to deliver all the legislation. It may be possible for the Government to put in place certain parts of it, but it is worth reminding people that this is not just a decision for the British Government because unless the devolved Administration decide, jointly and equally, that they will take on responsibility for justice, that will not happen. Hence, Northern Ireland could, and probably will, be in no man's land for some time. Do we want that no man's land to persist in relation to symbols, which will be a running sore? No one wants that.

Lady Hermon: It is good to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Pike.
 The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and I both feel passionately about making the agreement work and be seen to work. I want to draw to his attention the clause in the agreement that refers to the use of symbols to promote mutual respect rather than division. Would it not be unfortunate to include in the Bill a date that would give the provision retrospective effect from March 2000, and to close down the possibility of parties, such as his and, hopefully, mine, agreeing on mutual symbols for the exterior of court houses?

Seamus Mallon: I take the hon. Lady's point. She raises the other crucial issue, which is probably at the back of everyone's mind, not least the Minister's, as we debate the clause. I have a high regard for the Standing Committee system. I think that this is the eleventh Standing Committee on which I have had the honour to serve. The other Committees of which I was a member considered a broad range of emergency and other legislation.
 I do not like to see the Committee system abused—I have some experience of that. We expend a great deal of effort, time and energy on the Bill, knowing full well that parts of it were not decided on in Standing Committee, nor on the Floor of the House, but elsewhere. We might well say that that is the nature of politics. Maybe it is, but it does not add to the credibility of our debates or of a Committee such as this. 
 As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, time might help to solve this problem. Time might heal it or produce a road to Damascus 
 change of view that many people hope for. However, minor miracles are not the basis on which to append clauses to a Bill. Having said that, I hope that the issue will not be used as a bargaining counter. I am not suggesting that the Minister would use it in such a way, but I am adamant that if this part of the Bill were to become a bargaining counter against other parts of it, the process of justice would be devalued, as would the political process. 
 It is right to take the earliest opportunity to show the fundamental changes that are taking place. Anybody who knows Northern Ireland knows that at present there is an unseemly rush to ensure that edifices—or an edifice—are finished in time so that they will not be subject to this measure. We all know that that is happening—let us not make a secret of it. I am not in an unseemly rush, because the more we get the newness into this, the more the oldness will start to disappear of itself.

Andrew Turner: I think it is unwise to assume that we all know anything on this Committee.

Seamus Mallon: I think you are right.

Andrew Turner: I speak entirely for myself. However, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that works are being advanced or slowed down for political purposes, perhaps it would be well for him to provide the Committee with some details, so that those of us who are less familiar with events in the Province may become more so.

Peter Pike: Order. The amendment is fairly tight. It concerns a date, and although I understand your point, Mr. Mallon, you should keep your discussion relevant to the terms of the amendment and not get sidetracked by others who might lead you astray.

Seamus Mallon: Thank you very much, Mr. Pike. I shall try not to go astray. There is only one edifice being built, and it is there for all to see. I shall certainly share my insights with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) if he wishes, as the point is essential in relation to amendment No. 274.
 May I make a personal observation on symbols? I have no problem living with anybody else's symbols, and I never have had. I was raised in a little village, where the symbols of my tradition simply did not exist. I was reared on the symbols of Orangeism, Unionism and Britishness, and then along came 30 years of violence. Lo and behold, what did those who called themselves patriotic Irish republicans do? They copied exactly what had been done with Orange, Unionist and British symbols and started to use the Irish symbols in the same provocative way. I have no time for either tendency. 
 I want to respect people's symbols and traditions, and what they mean to them, and do not want to cause offence to anyone in that regard. But neither do I want symbols of any kind to be used provocatively—although I do not suggest that that is the case in this 
 instance—or in a manner that would retard progress. I suggest that the use of symbols would retard progress in the context described in the clause. 
 I shall leave the matter there. I hope that I have made my position clear.

Crispin Blunt: I want to respond briefly to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on the issue of the date. I am afraid that I shall have to treat him more harshly than his status in the community would seem to merit.
 The hon. Gentleman's amendment is precisely the sort of thing that is proposed when one starts mucking about with symbols, as the clause does. For the reasons that we shall no doubt address shortly, the amendment may appear to the part of the community that values the symbol of the royal coat of arms as a racket to get it stripped from courthouses between the date that the hon. Gentleman suggests and the date when this legislation comes into effect. 
 The hon. Gentleman's objection to symbols is to the provocative way in which they are used, but his amendment would achieve the provocative effect that he said he wanted to avoid. In dealing with this area, people must be straight down the line, and I do not think that the amendment falls into that category. It is not a straightforward amendment, or would not be regarded as such by many in Northern Ireland, and the Opposition will resist it.

Lembit Öpik: I take a slightly more sympathetic view of the amendment, although I would not have moved it myself. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh seems to be saying that, even while we discuss the Bill, some people feel that efforts are being made to slip a few royal arms and symbols in before the closing date. That is a perfectly reasonable concern to raise.
 The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made the opposite case clearly, but some from the nationalist and republican communities may feel aggrieved that, until the Bill comes into force, there will be a kind of free-for-all in getting as many symbols into place as possible. Like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I have never been particularly offended by symbols representing other cultures, but I know that some people have. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view of the cogent case made by the hon. Gentleman.

Gregory Campbell: Listening to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh outline the rationale for the amendment, one could be forgiven for thinking that the display of royal arms in the courts has been a bone of contention for a long time. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been involved in Northern Ireland politics for a long time, and I do not recall it being an issue before the publication of the criminal justice review. It certainly has not been an issue for the professions or members of the Bar, and the number joining the professions from Unionist, nationalist or other communities has neither diminished nor increased as a result of the display.
 It is not a subject that has made the headlines. I may not have been involved in politics for as long as the hon. Gentleman, but I venture to say that I am not that far behind him. I have been involved in politics in Northern Ireland for 25 years, and I cannot recall it ever having been an issue of controversy prior to the criminal justice review. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the completion of buildings. I urge hon. Members to check, to discover how long the building work to which he alluded has been going on, and what its completion date was and is. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded. 
 I am most definitely at one with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh in saying that the matter of symbols in Northern Ireland cannot be overestimated—nor can the question of their removal. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland alluded before Christmas to a cold place in Northern Ireland for Unionists. The import of the amendment would be not a cold place; it would be for the freezer to be turned down. The issue has not been a bone of contention for either community. Indeed, the lack of controversy and the subject's absence from the headlines indicate that the presence of the symbols was never a bone of contention. However, should the amendment be accepted, their removal most certainly would be a cause for controversy. I therefore find myself resolutely in opposition to the thrust of the amendment.

Mark Francois: I wish to make only a brief contribution. I acknowledge that the question of symbols has a particular resonance in Northern Ireland, for reasons that we are all well aware of, but it is important also in other parts of the United Kingdom. We must be wary that our debate is not entirely in the context of Northern Ireland. I shall return to that point in a moment.
 I accept that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has given long service in the House, but I nevertheless disagree with him. He seems to argue that if we do not agree to the amendment, the proposed timings could cause offence to one tradition in Northern Ireland. We have to acknowledge that in agreeing to accept it. Even to do what the Government propose on their suggested timings would cause great offence to another tradition in Northern Ireland. However gently he made his argument, his amendment would rub things in so far as the other tradition was concerned. 
 When we debated timing on Second Reading, I argued that there would be an anomaly, in that some courthouses would display the royal arms but others would not, depending not on what they stood for but simply on when they opened. To give the Minister full marks for honesty, he replied, ''That is true.'' The question of whether the symbols are displayed raises issues of great principle. To alter the timing, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, would not obviate the point of principle but make the situation worse by rubbing one tradition's nose in it. I respectfully but firmly disagree with him.

Des Browne: I am grateful for the measured way in which Committee members
 have approached the debate, and am sure that we shall return to some of the issues on other amendments. It may help the Committee if I tackle some of the issues of principle in the context of the amendment, as they will inform our debates. The issue is obviously important and emotive, and nothing that I say is intended to undermine that fact. The Government appreciate it, and it was reflected in the contributions to the debate, whether they came from firmly held positions or were meant as ameliatory and looked for centre ground, as some did.
 I share the view of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that it is regrettable, if perhaps predictable, that the issue of symbols—one recommendation out of 294 in the review—is likely to attract more attention than the important and radical changes elsewhere in the Bill. I have said that before. I am not unrealistic, however. It is also a pity that the symbols issue tends to be treated as a zero sum game in Northern Ireland, which is a mistake. I believe that there is scope for an outcome that is principled, consistent and fair. 
 Several important principles lie behind the review recommendations, which build on the thinking in the Belfast agreement made on Good Friday. In the context of the debate, it is legitimate to make the point raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) about the absence of any apparent controversy in relation to the issue. He talked about seeing the issue in the context of more than Northern Ireland. However, we are where we are. The review made the specific recommendations, so lines were drawn on the issue to some degree, and it then became an issue with which the Government had to deal. 
 As the hon. Member for North Down points out, the recommendation, which the Government have attempted to translate into legislation, has its roots in the agreement. It was from the agreement that the remit for the review came. She pointed out that the agreement stressed 
''the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need . . . to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect''.
 I think that that was the quotation in the agreement to which she referred. 
 The criminal justice review developed its work on the subject in line with the approach recommended in the agreement. The review group saw that an important balance had to be struck between recognising the courts' position within the agreed constitutional framework, and using symbols in a sensitive manner. 
 The review group sought to achieve the necessary balance in its recommendations. Whatever it proposed, there would undoubtedly have been objections from all sides. However, the recommendations were an attempt to strike a careful balance, in particular making a useful distinction between the interiors of courtrooms and exteriors of courthouses, where, arguably, different considerations apply. The Bill reflects the thinking behind those recommendations. 
 I regret that the Government have to come before Parliament to regulate in statute a matter that, so far as I know, has never been discussed in legislation before. That, again, reflects the lack of confidence and trust between the two sides in Northern Ireland. However, I remain optimistic that that state of affairs need not continue forever. Like the review group, the Government 
''look to a future when these issues can be addressed on an agreed basis to the satisfaction of all parts of the community''.

Lady Hermon: The Minister referred to the quotation that I used from the agreement about the need
''to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect''.
 How can the words ''symbols'' and ''are to be used'' be compatible with the agreement, when the review recommends an absence of symbols?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She and I have discussed the issue during debates in the House and in private. I do not accept that the review recommends the absence of symbols. Indeed, the review recommendation specifically refers to the retention of symbols in certain circumstances. That is the aspect of the review's recommendations that I described as an attempt to strike a careful balance. This is not a science. We cannot say that balances, when they are to be struck, can be struck specifically as if this were a law of physics; it is not.
 There is debate about the interpretation of what the review group said, what it recommended and what it sought to see enacted to create a proper balance, and the hon. Lady engages in that debate in a constructive and positive fashion. However, to say that the recommendation equates with the absence of symbols is to misrepresent the position. I remain optimistic. I borrowed the quotation from the review to try to explain to the Committee the Government's position so far as the future is concerned. 
 I draw the Committee's attention to the recent agreement on symbols by the Policing Board, which is an example of being able to look to the future and to resolve matters in an agreed fashion that generates satisfaction. Many were sceptical at the idea that the new Policing Board could come up with an agreed symbol. The board's success is a lesson to us all.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. This discussion is difficult because, while we are dealing with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, you have allowed the Minister to argue a general case. Could we have your guidance on when to address the fundamentals of the issue, which the Minister is beginning to do?

Peter Pike: I shall give a ruling. I was listening closely to the Minister. Following an earlier intervention, I said that we were going slightly wide of the amendment, which refers purely to a date, although it has regard to symbols. We cannot avoid
 mentioning symbols to some degree, but please keep that to a minimum. We shall consider other symbols later, so we should keep to the amendment. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee.

Des Browne: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Pike. I was endeavouring to respond to specific points that have been raised. As they were deemed to be in order, I thought that it was appropriate for me to respond and inform the continued debate.

Peter Pike: Perhaps the Chairman was too liberal in allowing people to go a little wide of the mark.

Des Browne: Well, you can say that Mr. Pike. I am always careful to observe the Chairman's decisions. I am grateful to you for the subtle nuance of your last observation.
 I want to leave space for agreement in the future. In the meantime, the Government have undertaken to consider carefully the outcome of the consultation exercise and the parliamentary stages. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in considering all the representations that we have received, including those expressing concerns about certain provisions—on heritage grounds, for example—perhaps a sensible balance has been struck. That approach enhances the importance of the debate; it does not detract from or devalue it. 
 The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh would redefine a new courthouse as any courthouse first used after 30 March 2000, which is the date that the review was published. Although the review was published on that date, the Bill that will implement it is currently the object of our scrutiny and has not yet come into effect. The implementation plan published last November made it clear that the implementation of new measures would require legislation. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to make retrospective provision. Accordingly, the provisions cover courthouses that are opened after the Bill becomes law. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh that no building in Northern Ireland has been constructed in haste, or in anything other than the context of its normal scheduled building time, in response to the provisions. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Crispin Blunt: As the Minister is inviting the Committee to resist the amendment, I should be grateful if he would reassure hon. Members that any building completed before the enactment of the Bill will have a royal coat of arms outside.

Des Browne: The hon. Member for Reigate is capable of understanding the Bill's provisions. The prohibition of royal arms on the exterior of future buildings applies only to new courthouses built after the Bill is enacted. It could not mean anything else.

Seamus Mallon: I have listened with interest. People have realised from recent experiences that the question is at the core of life in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are two or three choices in dealing with something of that nature. One can finesse it away, pretend it does not exist, or look it in the face and
 work out how to deal with it. I prefer to look it in the face.
 I take the point made by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about symbols. I have no problem with that. I want to avoid a situation in which the gap created by the process of implementation and enactment is such that the Bill will become law long before devolution occurs. As the hon. Member for North Down suggested, there is not time within which to solve this, but there is time within which it might fester. That is one of my problems in terms of timing. 
 The amendment is not perfect, but it is less imperfect that the Government's wording, 
''after the coming into force of this section'' 
of the Bill. This clause's coming into force does not guarantee the coming into force of other clauses of the Bill, devolution or the new beginning for which we all hope. Nevertheless, it was right to table the amendment, it was right to make the case and I shall continue to make the case on amendment No. 274. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 22.

Question accordingly negatived.

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 58, line 4, at end add—
'( ) No other symbols must be displayed— 
 (a) in any courtroom, 
 (b) in any other place inside a court-house, 
 (c) on the exterior of a court-house, or 
 (d) in any other place outside a court-house which is used for the purposes of the court-house.'

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 3—Display of Royal Arms—
'It shall be mandatory for the Royal Arms to be displayed— 
 (a) on the exterior of each court-house; and 
 (b) in each courtroom.'.

Seamus Mallon: Many of the points that can be made for and against the amendment have already been made, but I shall explain part of the thinking behind it. I venture to suggest, perhaps arrogantly, that it is tidier than the Bill in defining ''a courthouse'' and ''courthouse precincts''. The Bill tries to define those terms, and I have also tried to do so.
 The definition that is used in relation to polling stations immediately comes to my mind. It refers to the 
 tutelage of a polling station, which takes in all parts of the building, and not just the room in which polling takes place, including the outside grounds and the fencing, railings or whatever there might be. That might be a tidier way in which to look at the issue. 
 The amendment would not have been tabled if there were not a Government proposal. Sometimes we forget that. There would not be a Government proposal had we been able to reach an agreement in the negotiations prior to the Good Friday agreement. We were unable to reach such an agreement hence we decided that the review body, which has now made a proposal, would be set up. 
 It may be worth taking a second or two to look at the report and ask, as with the Patten report, whose names are on the front of it. As was helpfully pointed out, Patten is a former member of the Conservative party, a former Minister of Education and Science, a former commissioner, a present commissioner, a former Governor of Hong Kong. He is not a raving nationalist from the heartland of south Armagh, such as myself. 
 By and large, the review body was made up of civil servants. Civil servants to the north of Ireland are not, have not been and probably never will be noted for their strong views about anything, but after consultation, a view was presented to the Government by the review body. It stems from the negotiations prior to the Good Friday agreement and, through the review body, is reflected in the legislation. It is not the result of huge lobbying by me—or, indeed, by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. We shared the view that it was an issue, but our views on it were diametrically opposed. It is important to consider it honestly. 
 The amendment tidies up the Government's definition of a courthouse; perhaps an alternative wording would be better than either proposal.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the Bill falling in line with the Patten review recommendations. Does he accept that that is not always appropriate? For example, the Patten report specifically recommended that the policing badge should be entirely free of any association with either the British or the Irish states. I believe that the hon. Gentleman alluded to that. However, the subsequent legislation and the unanimous agreement of the Policing Board were contrary to the recommendation in the review. The review is not set in concrete. Therefore, the Bill does not necessarily have to follow its every letter and jot.

Seamus Mallon: There is some validity to the hon. Lady's point. However, I do not intend to define the symbols of the police; I leave that to others. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and the substantive difference in what we are dealing with is that we must all be—I will not say comfortable, because one can never be comfortable in such a context—at least satisfied that the experience of justice in Northern Ireland is there for the entire community. I do not know what arguments may come from others, but I do not think that we will hear the argument that, since the state was formed, justice has encompassed the entire
 community—nor will we hear the argument that, in effect, the whole community in Northern Ireland had the same emotional attachment to the process. That is part historical, part political and part colonial. However, change must take place.
 A large section of the community regard the proposals, rightly or wrongly, as an indication of how the Bill will work when enacted. I accept that a section in the north of Ireland will look at them with a jaundiced view, but if we are to make the essence of the Good Friday agreement work, we must get people with different ideological, emotional and political attitudes to work as one. We will not achieve that if, one way or another, we hide the fact that they exist.

Lady Hermon: Once again, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. His amendment, which refers to the exterior of the courthouse and so on, opens with the words:
''No other symbols must be displayed''.
 Will he explain how the words, ''No other symbols'' are compatible with the provision in the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—that refers to symbols being 
''used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division''?
 Does he accept that the removal of symbols, and the neutrality that that would introduce, would achieve the opposite of promoting mutual respect?

Seamus Mallon: No, I do not. Those of us who have lived all our lives in Northern Ireland know of and have seen circumstances in which symbols, perhaps not noticeable to others, mean something, either negative or positive. Through my amendment, I am trying to ensure that the new criminal justice system is a fresh start, which is not based on residues from the past and is not a recreation of something that could divide people and prevent individuals from all sections of the community from giving their full support to the process of justice.

Lembit Öpik: The Assembly itself was a new start, and it managed to broker a symbol that is now generally accepted by all sides. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the establishment of a symbol for the courthouse that is accepted by everybody in the community would be a greater triumph than the somewhat draconian measure of banning symbols altogether, thus preventing unification behind certain symbols?

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The remarkable effort that went into the symbol of the Assembly predated it. Someone, as yet unidentified, had a bright idea and published it; we all accepted it, thought that it was good and tried to claim it for ourselves, which did not work. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; once again, his remarks are true and have a lot of validity.
 However, we are in a difficult position because we are dealing, in a Standing Committee, with a piece of legislation. We do not have the luxury of going out that door, waiting six or 10 weeks then getting into a 
 huddle and negotiating the Bill—or whatever may happen before or after Report, or after it becomes law. That is the difficulty to which I alluded earlier. In effect, when one is dealing in a Committee such as this with a piece of legislation such as this, one does not have those luxuries—nor do I believe that the Government should have them. That is why my amendment is very specific, because I believe that it is necessary.

Lembit Öpik: I asked the hon. Gentleman the question, but he and I must agree to differ, because I am optimistic that, on the basis of what has happened with the police emblems and what happened at Stormont—though he rightly explained the somewhat crafty way in which that was achieved—it is possible to find symbols that, for want of a better phrase, define the character of justice in Northern Ireland without being offensive to any side. To establish such symbols would be a greater achievement than to take away the opportunity for cultural expression in the Province's courts.
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the debates on the form of those new symbols could become heated. However, that could be helpful, because it could force people to focus on finding a symbol that makes the kind of cultural statements that they want to make without denying other sides in the community cultural expression. 
 My other point is a human one. It would be a shame if the courtrooms in Northern Ireland were forbidden to use any kind of symbol, because that is not the way that human beings are—it does not reflect the way in which they celebrate their identity. Courtrooms with no symbols would be cold and sterile—they would be all about head and not much about heart. It should be recognised that human beings are entitled to show more than a room's sterilised function. As I look around this Room, I see many different, unnecessary symbols. I would expect and hope that nobody in the Committee would find them offensive, but they add to the character and in some ways to the status of the Room. 
 I understand why the hon. Gentleman proposed this amendment, because much of the time in Northern Ireland symbols have been used as a statement of oppression or a way of snubbing other cultures. On the basis of precedents from the past few years, we have moved some way forward. I am enough of an optimist to believe that those precedents, which were set either craftily or through formalised debate, as occurred with the police symbols, could be replicated in this case, reaching a successful conclusion.

Gregory Campbell: I want to speak to new clause 3. Again, I want to come to the issue of the symbols and their uncontroversial nature.
 As I said in relation to a previous amendment, down the years in Northern Ireland, issues of a controversial nature have often taken place in courtrooms, and the events that have transpired or been the subject of proceedings have attracted television cameras and headlines. Many people have 
 been subjected to the presence of the media in the courtroom or have seen reports in the newspapers or on their television screens, but on no occasion do I recall the display of the royal arms becoming the subject of controversy. 
 In fact, in an Ad Hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I put several questions to the Law Society about the issue in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister will have more first-hand and relevant experience of the matter in Scotland, where the tide of nationalist opinion may rise and abate, but there has been no evidence of a demand for the removal of the royal coat of arms. There has not been such a campaign in Northern Ireland either, but now we have the Belfast agreement, from which this and other issues have flowed. 
 Many people in Northern Ireland deeply resent the tributaries that seem to flow from the river called the Belfast agreement, all of which seem to flow in a particular direction. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that, when such issues are discussed, there is a deep reservoir of opinion on either side. However, if as a result of the hon. Gentleman's amendment and the defeat of new clause 3, we extend that position further to create a neutral, symbol-free environment, when there was no controversy before, that will be seen by many in the Unionist community to be a step in a particular direction. 
 Some Members have alluded to the successful conclusion of the debate about the police badge. It should be remembered that the old RUC badge contained several symbols, more Irish than British, and was not the subject of contention until some people in the community thought that political capital could be gained and demanded that it be changed. The Patten report made a particular recommendation, which was, to some extent, set to one side as a result of the unanimous approval of the Policing Board of a badge that had similar connotations to the old RUC badge. I hesitate to suggest that we could be getting into a circular argument, but if it were mandatory for the royal arms to be displayed on the exterior of each courthouse and on the interior of each courtroom, it is my belief, supported by the evidence of the past, that no one would feel offended, and that it would not have a detrimental effect either on those whose professional expertise brings them within the jurisdiction of the court, or on the defendants who come to the court. It would not be seen as a detrimental step to communities that simply view the matter as something in which they have an interest but not one in which they have first-hand experience. 
 For the life of me, I cannot find any reasoning that would lead me to support the removal of something non-contentious, when the removal itself would be deeply contentious. I cannot understand why anyone would say that this move would somehow reconcile two sides.

Lady Hermon: Perhaps it would helpful to give some members of the Committee some idea of how many courtrooms and court buildings we are talking about in Northern Ireland. It is a small jurisdiction. People in the Northern Ireland Office have been
 enormously helpful in supplying statistics about the number of symbols inside and outside such buildings. I shall quantify the matter.
 The royal coat of arms is embossed or sculpted—in other words, a fixture—into the fabric of a very small number of buildings. The present number of courtrooms that have internal coats of arms as a fixture is five, including Banbridge courthouse, which is earmarked under the accommodation strategy for possible closure. Therefore, in only a handful of courts is the coat of arms sculpted in. 
 I note with some confidence the statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading to the effect that consultations have resulted from concerns about heritage, and that he would listen to views expressed on that matter. I am anxious that there should be no acts of vandalism—that is what they would amount to—and no hatchet job on listed buildings. We are talking about a mere handful of buildings, after all. 
 There are 69 courtrooms plus one county court to which coats of arms are fixed with a screw, for example, but are not a fixture. Ten courtrooms have external coats of arms. The Belfast magistrates court was due for closure at the end of January 2002, removing it from that category, so only 10 courthouses carry the coat of arms. 
 I always take the agreement as the touchstone by which the Bill and, by extension, the review must be measured, as it was approved by a significant majority in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland in referendums. I draw attention to three paragraphs. First, the beginning of the agreement states that 
''Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll''.
 The constitution states clearly that Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom unless or until a majority of people vote otherwise. 
 Towards the end of the agreement, there is an enormously useful reminder to all the participants who 
''acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.''
 A whole paragraph was dedicated to the use of symbols, in which the point was made about symbols promoting 
''mutual respect rather than division.''
 I draw the Committee's attention again to the beginning of the agreement, which records that the British and Irish Governments and the other participants agreed that 
''the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions''.
 That is something, I am sure, with which we would all agree. However, I would not like to put words into the mouths of hon. Members, particularly not that of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who, I am sure, would not wish me to. 
 The Committee will be interested to know that those provisions were considered in a recent court case in Northern Ireland. For the benefit of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I would mention that the High Court decision was delivered by Mr. Justice Kerr, on 4 October 2001. The case tested the compatibility of the flags regulations with the agreement. The clauses of the agreement to which I drew the Committee's attention were tested on that occasion. The applicant had claimed that the regulations were incompatible with the Good Friday agreement—particularly in that they failed to have regard to the partnership, equality and mutual respect between opposing political parties—and that they failed to fulfil the Government's commitment to exercise them with rigorous impartiality. However, Mr. Justice Kerr upheld the regulations by a very useful interpretation of the agreement, which would enlighten our debate about the use of symbols in courthouses. I quote from page 18 of his judgment: 
''The Union flag is the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part. It is the judgment of the Secretary of State that it should be flown on Government buildings only on those days on which it is flown in Great Britain. By thus confining the days on which the flag is to appear, the Secretary of State sought to strike the correct balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging Northern Ireland's constitutional position and, on the other, not giving offence to those who oppose it. That approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for partnership, equality and mutual respect and to fulfil the Government's undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions.''
 If, by extension, we apply that interpretation of the agreement and how legislation should be ruled to be compatible with the agreement, I suggest that—bearing in mind the groups of courts that we have considered—those courts where the royal coat of arms is embossed into the fabric of the building and the 69 courts, plus one county court, where the royal coat of arms is affixed should remain, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is the constitutional position. The balance could be struck in that the 16 new courtrooms could have mutually agreed symbols. That seems wholly compatible with the provisions of the agreement.

Seamus Mallon: I am becoming very interested in the hon. Lady's point. She has gone to great pains to obtain the statistics about the courthouses that bear the symbols, and we thank her for that. How many of those courthouses in the north of Ireland bear any symbol that will be representative of what could broadly be called the nationalist tradition?

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The royal coat of arms already contains the harp, which is very much the symbol of the Irish tradition. If the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me again, I shall have a look through my papers, as I have a copy of it somewhere.

Seamus Mallon: It is only right that the hon. Lady have time to look through her papers.

Peter Pike: This a very unusual intervention.

Seamus Mallon: Certainly, my understanding is that the harp, although a symbol of Irish nationalism, originated in Wales, as did St. Patrick, extraordinarily.

Lady Hermon: I thank you for your patience and tolerance, Mr. Pike, during that useful intervention by the hon. Gentleman, which gave me some time. With a little help from my colleagues, I can now say that the harp is incorporated in the third quarter of the royal coat of arms. By extension, it is in royal coats of arms throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

Crispin Blunt: I want to address the contribution made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who rightly said that the issue was never of special importance and had not been raised by anyone. One draws parallels with the extraordinary outbursts of violence from time to time in countries such as India when the remains of Hindu temples are discovered under mosques. People were wholly unaware of such issues, but then they were discovered, brought to the fore and two communities that had rubbed along perfectly happily were suddenly lined up as opposing sides. Even in recent years, there have been tragic events in India and substantial bloodshed caused by issues that, to the purposes of the outside world, were entirely symbolic. That is why it is a pity that we are considering such measures at all.
 Before I develop those arguments, I want to tackle briefly the consequences of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I hope that he appreciates that it would mean that one would have to re-sculpt the Supreme Court in Belfast. Never mind that the royal coat of arms is carved into the wood above the judges' seats inside the courtrooms; the marble structure of the foyer of that building is carved with the royal coat of arms and other symbols appertaining to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I cannot remember what the symbols are precisely, but they are extremely large. As the hon. Member for North Down said, to remove them would be an act of vandalism—

Edward Garnier: I am sorry to have committed an act of vandalism on my hon. Friend's sentence. I am especially interested in the phrase in the amendment,
''in any other place inside a court-house''.
 That highlights the deficiency of the clause, which refers to either the exterior of courthouses or the interior of courtrooms, but on my reading does not deal with the public parts of the court building such as the foyer or hall. The Minister may take a different view. Subsection (1) mentions the courtroom, and subsections (2) and (4) refer to the exterior or outside of a courthouse. My hon. Friend's point chimed in with only those references.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. and learned Friend is right in referring to one of the consequences of the amendment, because it is framed to take account of the whole court environment. As he correctly points out, it does not comprise only the court room and the exterior of the courthouse but includes the other areas inside the courthouse.

Des Browne: That is not my reading of the amendment. It refers to ''other symbols''. It would have no impact on the royal coat of arms. We have not yet heard what those other symbols might be, but they do not include the royal coat of arms.

Crispin Blunt: I am trying to remember what I saw on my one visit to the courtroom in question, but I do not think that the royal coat of arms was displayed. It was a slightly different symbol, but the amendment would remove it.
 That leads me to the point about heritage made by the hon. Member for North Down. The hon. Lady drew attention to those courts where the royal coat of arms is built into the fabric, and said that it would obviously be an act of vandalism to remove it. She drew attention to the Secretary of State's comments on the subject on Second Reading. He said: 
''We are considering all the representations we have received, including a number expressing concern on heritage grounds about the removal of certain symbols. We will consider whether any changes are needed in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise, and the views expressed in the House. We are open to any constructive suggestions, particularly those capable of attracting cross-community support.''—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 646.]
 We are about to put some pretty explicit instructions into primary legislation, and unless other legislation is going to be made that will overrule it, that vandalism will take place. Should Parliament pass the Bill, the royal coats of arms will be stripped out and the vandalism to which the hon. Lady referred will take place unless a qualifying phrase is inserted at a later stage. 
 The hon. Member for North Down was right to draw attention to the Belfast agreement and the constitutional position. I do not want to repeat what she said; I entirely agree with her. I noted that, in response to the previous debate, the Minister said that the review had tried to strike a careful balance and that it was a matter of judgment. He said that there was no law of physics that would bring us to the correct solution. 
 The review has been deficient in trying to match the wisdom of Solomon. The Government propose slicing the baby in half, but neither side will intervene to save the baby's life. We shall be left in the unique position that the review will have managed to offend everybody. That does not deliver on the Belfast agreement—nor on the Labour party manifesto.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, nevertheless, that, however it came about, a satisfactory settlement was reached on symbols for the police and for Stormont? It is not necessarily an irreconcilable position to find a symbol that would suit most of us—or even all of us.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point, with which I agree. I wonder why we are attempting to achieve such a thing in the Bill. All it does is create division.
 The point was included in the Labour party manifesto. A copy of the Parliamentary Labour party briefing came to me from the office of the Secretary of State—by indirect means, I might add. It 
 states that the Bill delivers another manifesto commitment. It continues: 
''We will ensure that the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full and that new institutions take root . . . We will bring about the key reforms in the civil and criminal justice system which secure the respect and trust of both traditions.''
 I hope that the Government do not believe that they have delivered on that item of their manifesto because, palpably, this provision will undermine the rest of the Bill and line the issue up with judicial oaths. Indeed, the provision is worse than that on judicial oaths because the stripping away of symbols will be so visible to the community. 
 The answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and the Committee sits in the review. Having taken a position, the concluding part of the review's recommendations states: 
''These practices would become subject to any decision of the Assembly on devolution of responsibility for courts administration.''
 It would have been infinitely better if that position had been taken in the first place. We have now created a situation where we all have to take fundamental positions based on an issue about which I suspect people had not previously given a great deal of thought. Because we are driven into considering what the symbology means, we have to take positions fundamentally aligned with our political philosophies. The Conservative party has to decide whether to support new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, which will insist that royal coats of arms should be displayed inside courtrooms and outside courthouses. The Minister correctly pointed out that there has not been any legislation in that area before. The use of those symbols has arisen through custom and practice. The accepted custom and practice under our constitution is that justice flows from the Crown, which is above politics. The symbol of the royal coat of arms, of the Queen, of justice flowing from the sovereign in court above the political process will be lost. 
 The Conservative party will be forced to take up a position. My preference is that the clauses should not appear in the Bill. Before we get to that point, we will be invited to vote on new clause 3. Plainly, the Conservative party takes a position about the place of Northern Ireland inside the United Kingdom and the role of the sovereign. Our position is that justice flows from the sovereign. While Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom by the consent of the majority of its people, those are the appropriate symbols to reflect the constitutional reality. The Conservative party will support new clause 3 if the hon. Member for East Londonderry presses it to a vote. 
 It is a pity that the Government were not wise enough to follow the excellent precedent set by the Policing Board, which managed to resolve this difficult issue in an effectively devolved framework. 
Lady Hermon rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, it may be helpful if I gave a ruling so that everyone knows where we are regarding new clause 3, which is grouped with the amendment. Mr. Campbell
 has indicated to the Committee that he would seek to move new clause 3, which is tabled in his name. That would be taken at the end of this part of the Bill. At that stage, he would move the new clause formally. I have to inform the Committee that, if the question that clause 66 stand part is agreed to, I would not be able to allow a separate Division on new clause 3. New clause 3 would be inconsistent with clause 66. I would allow a Division on new clause 3 if the question whether clause 66 stand part of the Bill were negatived. I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. If hon. Members are minded to vote on new clause 3 they must defeat clause 66 in the clause stand part debate, which would allow me to put new clause 3 to a Division. I hope that that ruling is clear.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Pike. We shall oppose clause 66 standing part of the Bill, and I do not intend to repeat this speech in the clause stand part debate unless unexpected additional issues arise during the remainder of the debate. I intend to cover the clause stand part debate in this contribution. Just to ensure that I have understood the ruling, am I right in thinking that if clause 66 stands part of the Bill, new clause 3 cannot be put to a vote?

Peter Pike: I was going to make the point at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I felt that it would be helpful to make it clear because he specifically referred to it. If clause 66 is carried and stands part of the Bill, I cannot take a vote on new clause 3 because I cannot allow a Bill to leave Committee with two clauses that are totally inconsistent.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful because that relieves me of my dilemma, Mr. Pike. I wish that I had known that before.

Lady Hermon: I want clarification on how the hon. Gentleman thinks new clause 3, which would cause division over symbols, is compatible with the part of the agreement that promotes mutual respect. His party supported the agreement, and I would therefore expect to find that new clause 3 and the agreement are reconcilable. I do not see how they can be, so perhaps he can explain that.

Crispin Blunt: It is simply because new clause 3 respects the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and the agreement also respects the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Those matters have never previously been legislated on, and my information on that coincides precisely with the Minister's.
 We have been driven to legislate because the matter has come up in the Bill. I regret that and wish that that had not happened, but, as Mr. Pike has made clear, if we are unlucky enough not to manage to persuade Government Members to strip out clause 66, we shall not be in a position to vote on new clause 3. That is how I reconcile those positions. The hon. Lady has drawn attention to a potential contradiction with the agreement. There is no such contradiction, but the 
 matter has drawn us into territory that it would have been infinitely better not to cover. 
 I hope that we can persuade the Government to think again. A principle that has underlain many of my contributions in Committee is that such matters should, as far as is possible, be properly devolved. It would be much better if such decisions, particularly in areas where there is a precedent for resolving a difficulty, were taken by the devolved authority once justice were devolved. The matter is regrettable, and I hope that the Government will think again. 
 I certainly hope that the Government are not going to indulge in the vandalism of ancient symbols in courtrooms. I understand that there are courts in the Republic of Ireland that still have royal coats of arms, not least because they have cultural and heritage value. If such coats of arms have not been destroyed in the Republic of Ireland, it would be odd to choose to do so in the United Kingdom.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made, among things, two interesting remarks. One was that the civil service of Northern Ireland had no pronounced views—I paraphrase. It may not have any publicly deeply held and pronounced views, but many civil servants who are professional men and women must from time to time hold their noses, as they do the Government's business. The hon. Gentleman also asked the hon. Member for North Down whether the royal coat of arms included a representation of the nationalist—

Seamus Mallon: I did not ask that question. I asked which symbols represented the nationalist tradition in the courts that had been specified by the hon. Lady, and not what part they may be of another symbol.

Edward Garnier: The question that the hon. Gentleman outlines is one with which I want to get to grips. It identifies the very problem that lies behind his amendment. He wants to introduce a political element to the courts of Northern Ireland, but politics has no part to play there. I appreciate that many people think that it should, and that some cases that have been, and may in future be, dealt with by Northern Ireland courts will have a political tinge, but courts are wholly disinterested in politics. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the symbol by wanting to introduce a political element. One must only ask what the royal arms symbolise to understand why they exist, and why they should be allowed to continue. We seem to be confusing symbols in Northern Ireland generally with this particular symbol.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a genuine opportunity for conflict in the way in which the amendment is framed? It states:
''No other symbols must be displayed . . . in any courtroom''.
 One could get into debates about everything, from clothing to items in the courtroom, having symbolic value.

Edward Garnier: There is a myriad of good arguments to be deployed against the amendment, and I have time to deal with only one or two. An obvious symbol is the statue, or picture, of the blindfolded lady of justice with scales. Under the amendment, that would
 have to go were it on top of a court building or in some pictorial form within one.
 The only witty part about the amendment is the words, 
''in any other place inside a court-house'',
 because they identify a location that is not catered for in clause 66, which refers to the inside of courtrooms and the exterior of courthouses. The clause does not take account of the point drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about fittings in court halls, foyers and other public parts of court buildings that are inside the building but outside the courtroom. 
 I want to concentrate on the proper understanding of what the royal arms symbolise. They do not symbolise a political party or sectarian interest; still less do they symbolise the Government of Northern Ireland in the political sense of the word—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike: Order. I should point out to whoever has their mobile phone going off that it should be switched to silent mode, and should not be heard in Committee.

Edward Garnier: The royal arms symbolise not a political party, sectarian interest or the Government, but the Crown. I do not mean Her Majesty the Queen, an individual human being, but the impersonal, disinterested non-party political state, which is the provider of impartial public justice. In modern jargon, we call it ''the state.'' The state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and the hon. Member for North Down.
 Under our constitution, we sometimes call the state the Crown. We are concerned with the state's courts, and it is perhaps worth bearing in mind, if only briefly, that when the state brings a prosecution against one of its citizens, it is not the State v. Bloggs but the Crown v. Bloggs. I have no understanding that, under the Bill, the Public Prosecution Service will entitle criminal prosecutions in any other way.

Peter Pike: Order. Before the hon. and learned Member completes his comments, may I draw to the Committee's attention the fact that it is incorrect to cross the line between the person who is speaking and the Chair when coming into or going out of the Committee Room. Members must avoid that whenever possible.

Edward Garnier: Mr. Pike, your intervention is—I think—the fourth that I have had to cope with. However, it encourages me to cut short my remarks, because I suspect that those members of the Committee who have a modicum of interest in or understanding of what I am saying have long since got my point. [Interruption.] I was not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was reversing out of the Room or bowing.
 Let me quickly conclude my remarks. The arms within the courts are a convenient, useful and inoffensive shorthand. I suspect that some in the Committee are manufacturing offence where none is 
 intended and none should be taken. I invite those who support amendment No. 274 to consider carefully what they are supporting. I am concerned not so much about symbols—for goodness' sake, I have spent a great many years of my adult life wearing in court what some may think a silly uniform—but that the provision of justice has more to do with human beings and their attitudes to other human beings than with the furniture, the uniform or the other symbols of justice. 
 People want to see justice being done in the courts of the devolved justice system in Northern Ireland. Justice will not be improved by removing the coats of arms. Indeed, nothing will be improved by doing that. Instead, an unnecessary and unwelcome political angle will be added to what should be an area of public policy and public life that is wholly divorced from political and sectarian division.

Mark Francois: I opposed this aspect of the Bill on Second Reading because, as my party's reasoned amendment made clear, it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm. I am still opposed to it for the same reason.
 As I intimated earlier, the issue does not relate to Northern Ireland only but has important implications for other constituent parts of the United Kingdom as well. If we pass the Bill in its present form, in time we may hear an argument from certain quarters that the royal arms should be removed from other courthouses in the United Kingdom. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I hear Labour Members muttering ''Hear, hear.'' They prove my point. The people who may make such an argument, whoever they may be, will then seek to pray in aid the precedent that we are in danger of setting this afternoon for Northern Ireland. 
 There was some debate on Second Reading about the situation in Scotland, concerning the fact that, some time ago, the royal arms were not displayed in Scottish courts. My understanding—the Minister has worked in the Scottish system, so he will know—is that the royal arms are currently displayed in Scottish courts. We should, therefore, remain consistent on this point, for the sake of the integrity of the United Kingdom. The point about practices in Scotland is a red herring. 
 My objection to the provisions is that they give succour to republicans, but not just republicans in Northern Ireland. They threaten to give succour to republicans across the United Kingdom, and I am deeply opposed to that. What the Government are proposing that we do this evening has the potential—I use that word deliberately—to become the thin end of the republican wedge. Therefore, we must remember that what we are voting on tonight has implications across the whole of the United Kingdom. We must be very conscious of that when we vote on the matter, especially those of us who are, at heart, constitutional monarchists.

Des Browne: It would be inappropriate for me to repeat the general points that I made in the debate on amendment No. 275, so I shall try to restrict my comments to additional points that were not dealt with
 properly by my contribution to that debate. I want to record, however, that I am pleased to see that the responsible manner in which the previous debate was conducted has been continued into this debate. Although these debates involve strongly held views and significant emotion, the way in which they have been conducted thus far is a credit to the Committee.
 I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Rayleigh first. The hon. Gentleman told the Committee about what could be called his domino theory, in which this provision is the thin end of the wedge. I spent a lot of time—the hon. and learned Member for Harborough might recognise this—in court trying to persuade judges that what I was trying to get them to do would not open the floodgates. On a few occasions, I was successful. I can reassure those judges that their decisions did not open the floodgates. Lawyers spend a lot of time arguing points of principle with judges, trying to persuade them that there is no merit to the floodgates argument. 
 With respect to the hon. Member for Rayleigh, because I know that he holds his views appropriately and for good reasons, which he has articulated, I do not think that there is the remotest possibility of this provision leading to an upsurge in republicanism in Scotland and a demand for the removal of symbols in court rooms. Anyone in the Committee who thinks that that is a possibility can be reassured by my experience of Scottish courts and the conservative nature of the Scottish legal establishment. It is unlikely that the people who practise in those courts, whether or not they are republican, would call for the removal of those symbols. 
 However, I have some experience of appearing in court rooms in the Scottish system in which there were no symbols. That is not likely to be the case now, because the practice of displaying significant numbers of symbols has proliferated in Scotland. Some of them look cheap and nasty, because they consist of pieces of moulded plastic stuck on walls. I do not think that they especially enhance the environment of the room. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that symbols often enhance the rooms in which justice is dispensed, but I do not think that is especially true of such symbols. They do not give any sense of gravitas. They look what they are to those who sit on the public benches, but they are there, and I doubt that there is much likelihood of republicans—some members of republican parties are involved in the Scottish Parliament—calling for their removal. The hon. Member for Rayleigh will be reassured about that. 
 There is no direct parallel between Northern Ireland and Scotland in their relationship and union with England and the rest of the UK, for the simple reason that the union between Scotland and England was a negotiated and agreed position in 1707. Scotland does not share the same history as Northern Ireland, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point as well. 
 For those who think that nationalists will jump on the bandwagon in Scotland, I should explain that my understanding of the nationalist party's position on 
 constitutional monarchy is not far removed from that of all but one of the parties represented in the Committee.

Mark Francois: There are two points to make. First, I deliberately did not use the word nationalist, but republican. I chose my language quite carefully. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I was not trying to talk about any republicans who might or might not be confined to Scotland. Perhaps I should make it clear that I meant that there were quite a number of republicans in the Labour party, some overt and some covert. Those people will welcome the measure, because it advances their agenda. I am opposed to that.
 Secondly, the Minister referred to plastic symbols of royal arms in court rooms that he thought did not add anything to the value of the rooms. He seemed to imply that it was all right to remove them. If we consider the other side of that argument, presumably we could also argue that especially beautiful arms such as those carved on wood with great heritage value should be preserved for exactly the same reason.

Des Browne: There was no such implication in what I said. I merely made an observation from my experience. The reference to nationalists that crept into the debate did not come from the hon. Member for Rayleigh, but from the hon. Member for East Londonderry. My use of the word was in response to a point that he made.
 The hon. Members for Reigate and for East Londonderry regret the fact that we are considering the issue at all. They join the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for North Down and me in that regret, which I expressed at the outset of my remarks on the previous amendment. The hon. Member for Reigate differs from me in my expression of regret, as to an extent does the hon. Member for East Londonderry, because he seeks to attribute some blame to the Government for our consideration of the subject. 
 I can accept that from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, because at least in doing so he is consistent. He has never supported the Belfast agreement, despite what the people of Northern Ireland voted for. The use of ''democratic'' in the name of his party calls for a separate definition of the word. At least he is consistent, but the hon. Member for Reigate consistently parades his support for the Belfast agreement. Support for that agreement necessarily implies support for a review, because the review came from the agreed position. The review raised the issues, and made recommendations based on what it clearly thought was a balanced approach. I sought to summarise the way in which it did so in my earlier contribution, so I shall not go over it again. 
Mr. Blunt rose—

Des Browne: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, he will have an opportunity to intervene in a moment.
 The issue was raised in the context of the review. I venture to suggest that anyone who supported the review of criminal justice would frankly have been 
 naive to expect that it would not have been raised. That is the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry makes about the Belfast agreement. It would be naive to expect the issue would not be raised, and given that it had to be raised, what were the review team to do? Should they have pretended that the matter had not been raised, buried that contribution to the review and not put it in the public domain? Having put it in the public domain, even if they had made no recommendation, we would have been embroiled in this controversy in debate on the Bill. There is no question of that. 
 In his expression of regret, the hon. Member for Reigate suggests that the actions of the Government have generated the controversy. That is not the case. The fact that the Government support the Belfast agreement made on Good Friday has generated the controversy.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister implies that the Government do not have any capacity for independent thought, away from civil servants and those who served on the review team. It is the Bill that is now causing controversy, and it is up to the Government to decide what proposals in the review they put before Parliament. The implication of the Minister's argument is that the Government have been absolutely faithful to all the recommendations of the review, yet we are about to consider clauses 70 and 71, on which they have been nothing of the kind.

Des Browne: We shall come to those clauses in due course. My point has no less validity simply because the hon. Gentleman wants to address it by raising an entirely different point. The review came about because of the agreement, which the hon. Gentleman supports, and made recommendations that were welcomed as balanced and fair by all but the party represented by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. Although this process is not a science, the Bill is a faithful attempt to reflect recommendations that were called balanced and fair by a full cross-section of Northern Ireland society. I have read leading articles that reflect that view in newspapers sold in large numbers to both communities. Therefore, the Government occupy appropriate ground when they attempt to translate those balanced and fair arguments into legislation.
 Everything is subject to the position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading, and which I repeated today. The Government will consider all representations that they have received on this matter, including those on the heritage issues that I raised. Representations continue to be made, and the debate that we are having will inform that consideration. 
 The hon. Member for Reigate prayed in aid one other point that bears closer examination than he gave it. He castigated the Government by reference to the last part of the recommendations in paragraph 8.62 of the review. He referred to one sentence and seemed to suggest that the review had recommended that the matter should be left to a decision of the Assembly on devolution. In fact, that is a total misrepresentation of the wording, although I am sure that it was accidental. 
 That sentence starts with the two words ''These practices''. It states: 
''These practices would become subject to any decision of the Assembly on devolution of responsibility for courts administration.''
 It is clear from any ordinary reading that the practices referred to in that sentence are those mentioned earlier in the recommendation. It is clear to anyone reading that sentence properly and faithfully, without attempting to take it out of context, that the practices that the review recommended be devolved to the Assembly were the changed practices that were recommended in an earlier part of the recommendation. 
 There is no argument that the matter should simply be left. Leaving it to the devolved authorities, and regarding the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland as somehow equivalent to a Policing Board—which I think the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—would be adopting the very line for which he castigated the Government. That is not taking the responsibility that the Government's position require them to take. 
 I return to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for North Down, which came from officials in the Northern Ireland office. They are as accurate as they can be. However, when they were given to the hon. Lady they were in draft form. There is no great difference in them now, and the hon. Lady's points are not undermined, but I caution the Committee that they might be subject to slight amendment. Debates are ongoing in my office as to what is sculpted and what is fixed. I think that the hon. Lady's point was that the numbers will, of necessity, be comparatively small because the total quantity is small; that will not affect the principle. I should not like anyone to take the figures, which were prepared for illustrative purposes, to be prescriptive. 
 I turn to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Reigate. I am not sure what his point was, but he caused the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to raise it too. He referred to symbols in buildings other than court rooms. His first contribution and his contribution on Second Reading suggested that he thought that those symbols were to be removed because of the provisions of clause 66. The Government have not ignored those symbols. They are aware that they exist in parts of buildings other than court rooms or the exteriors of court rooms. The royal court of arms is sculpted in marble—if it is marble; that is subject to dispute, as some substitute materials look like marble—in the lobby of the Royal Courts of Justice. 
 The Bill applies to court rooms and the exterior of courts. It does not do that by accident, but because the recommendations of the review group apply to court rooms and the exterior of courts. The Government are aware that there are symbols in other parts of buildings—I am sure that Committee members who have been in courts in Northern Ireland know that they are there. However, there is no recommendation in relation to them, so there is no need to legislate in respect of them. 
 The hon. Member for North Down illuminates the Committee's discussions because she comes to them with such extensive, well-researched and helpful contributions. She has brought to our attention two decisions of the courts in Northern Ireland, both of which have been helpful and the second of which was also persuasive. That case was helpful to the Government because the judge upheld the Secretary of State's attempt to strike a balance in relation to flag flying. That should reassure the Committee that the Government are capable of striking a balance in an area of great contention that the courts in Northern Ireland, by reference to the Belfast agreement made on Good Friday, can uphold and find to be consistent with the terms of the agreement. With these provisions, the Government are attempting to strike a balance in relation to the royal coat of arms. 
 The hon. Member for North Down argued well that there was a flaw in the Government's judgment on this issue, whereas they were right before. That may need to be tested at some stage, but the Government believe that the balance struck in the clause will be found to be as sustainable in the face of interpretation of the agreement as the balance achieved on flags.

Lady Hermon: I tried to restrain myself but I cannot.
 At one point in the Murphy case, which was delivered as recently as October 2001, the court emphasised the fact that Northern Ireland was treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to flag flying. Therefore, it cannot be consistent with that judgment or with the Belfast agreement for the royal coat of arms to be taken out of court rooms in Northern Ireland because it would not be consistent with the position in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot reconcile myself to the Minister's remarks, which are entirely at variance with that court judgment.

Des Browne: I knew what the hon. Lady's argument would be. She made it perfectly clear before and did not need to intervene again. However, her argument does not alter a word of my answer.
 I turn now to amendment No. 274, tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I find the amendment perplexing for some of the reasons that engaged me in an intervention with the hon. Member for Reigate. The amendment provides that, as well as the royal arms, no other symbols may be displayed in court rooms, anywhere in a courthouse, on the exterior of a courthouse or in any other building used as a court. Although the word ''symbols'' is used in the review, it is clear from the context of the preceding paragraph that symbols means royal arms. We have not used the word ''symbols'' in the Bill because we were advised that it could be taken to include symbols—this might seem ridiculous but it is correct—such as the words ''fire exit'' if they appear on a sign, the statues of justice or of peace in the Londonderry courthouse, as was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, or the county crests displayed in the court rooms at Downpatrick or Bangor. I do not think that my hon. 
 Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh objects to those symbols, but they would be covered by the amendment. Even if we exclude the ridiculous example of the fire exit—I may need to be persuaded by those who are advising us that such a symbol would be included—the amendment would certainly include those other symbols. 
 The amendment would preclude the possibility, suggested in the review, of identifying a symbol that could reflect the separation of the court from the Executive and contain the qualities that the hon. Member for North Down urged that the symbolism in certain court rooms should have. Consistent with my earlier contribution, the Government do not wish to close down that possibility. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh to withdraw the amendment. 
 New clause 3 would insert into the Bill a requirement that every courthouse and court room in Northern Ireland should display a coat of arms. The amendment is inconsistent with the principle of a neutral working environment and I therefore oppose it. The review was set up by the Belfast agreement to deliver an efficient and effective criminal justice system that has the confidence of all parts of the community. The review specifically referred to creating an environment in which all those who attend court can feel comfortable. The new clause is not consistent with those aims. To be fair to the hon. Member for East Londonderry, he did not argue that it would be, but invoked other reasons. New clause 3 would require us to go back to court rooms and courthouses that do not currently display the royal arms and put up more symbols, and the Government are not prepared to do that. For those reasons, if my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh presses his amendment to a vote, I shall ask the Committee to resist it.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving us his views, which I found most interesting. I simply want to pose one question to Opposition Members in relation to the earlier part of our debate. Why did the review group make such a recommendation? As I have tried to explain, it would not have been the most radical grouping to grace Northern Ireland in the past 30 years. I suspect that when its members spoke to people, groups or lawyers, it was self-evident that the issue had to be dealt with if we were to have a new beginning. However, the implied view, at least, of Opposition Members was that all the new legislation could and should have gone ahead without this unfortunate theme sitting in the middle of it, which would hold everything up and cause controversy. That is pushing the case beyond reality. The hon. Member for Reigate seemed to imply that the Government should ignore or rebuff recommendation 141. He seemed to be saying that there was no onus on the Government to incorporate that recommendation into legislation.
 With respect, I challenge that view firmly on the grounds of bluntness—I mean no pun—because the legislation does not stand a pup's chance of working for the broader nationalist community, and there will not be the slightest chance of devolution unless the matter is dealt with. The notion that it would be 
 possible to conclude the Bill without such a provision simply does not stand up. 
 I enjoyed—no, enjoyment is not the word; that is too sadistic. I took a certain pleasure from the embarrassment shown by Opposition Members when it seemed possible that that they might have to vote in favour of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—that really was between a rock and a hard place. But the Chairman, in his wisdom, rightly ruled that the two would not be compatible and hence a sense of relief replaced a sense of embarrassment. 
 I think that the Minister owes me one, in the sense that I deflected attention from his proposals in the clause. He is getting away in the smoke, and I think that he realises it. I hope that, before the Committee ends, he will at least nod in the direction of one of my amendments. 
 I was interested in the potential subversion that exists in Scotland, England and Wales regarding the monarchy and incipient republicanism. I regard myself—in Irish and European terms—as a republican, but not anti-monarchy in the sense that the hon. Member for Rayleigh meant. None of my comments or amendments was measured in that way. The case was made for me when the Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate and others pointed out the remarkable preponderance of symbols that exist in the Royal Courts of Justice, especially in Belfast. Listening to their comments, I got the impression that those symbols were everywhere. There were so many that they were in all types of rooms, which seems to be ample justification for the amendment that I tabled. 
 I want to make another point about heritage. One of the most startling examples is Dublin castle, which was the seat of British power before 1922, and the seat of military and intelligence might. It has potent associations with that period of Irish history. All those symbols are preserved almost in their entirety. It is remarkable to walk into the James Connolly room. I am sure that there is nobody here who does not know that James Connolly was shot in 1916, after coming from Scotland. He was brought into that room, and all the symbols are retained there. 
 I am not advocating heritage vandalism: far from it. I am trying to ensure that people younger than myself, who have not had the experiences that I have been lucky enough to have, feel comfortable in our system. If I were to tell hon. Members that I and people in my community do not feel comfortable in those court rooms or those contexts, I would ask you not to judge that on the basis of bad faith, but to regard it as an honest observation. 
 I shall definitely press my amendment to a vote. I shall make a point that I made earlier, but in stronger language. I have had a bellyful of flags and symbols, be they so-called republican flags, tricolours, Union flags, the commemorations of hunger strikes, gable walls, King Billy, King James or whatever. I am sure that the entire population of the north of Ireland have had the same bellyful. I am trying to secure, at least in the courts of law, some relief from that. I do not want to 
 be offensive to any other section of the community, but to feel a little bit part of it, at ease with it, and belong to it much more than at present. 
 Flags are not something of great interest. The only flag that I am interested in now is that raised by the starter at Cheltenham in a few weeks. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Committee has considered that problem honestly and has said what it thought. It is a problem for us, but the Chairman's ruling is absolutely correct. I regret that the hon. Member for East Londonderry will be unable to put his new clause if clause 66 is ordered to stand part of the Bill, but I have moved my amendment to redress the imbalance.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman is prejudging the situation.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 23.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Community safety strategy

Patsy Calton: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 60, line 15, at end insert—
'(d) such other persons or organisations as he thinks appropriate.'.
 I should be able to deal with this probing amendment quickly. We want to know whether it is the Government's intention to prescribe who must be consulted when altering or devising a community safety strategy. Will the Secretary of State be able to consult others, or will he be confined to the three parties referred to in subsection 4(a), (b) and (c)?

Des Browne: The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult any
''other persons or organisations as he thinks appropriate''
 when devising or altering a community safety strategy for Northern Ireland. We endorse the principle of wide consultation on the strategy, and will publish a draft community safety strategy shortly for just such consultation. I welcome comments from all interested parties and organisations, particularly from those who work in the field of community safety. Should we want to make substantive changes to the strategy once it is established, we will consult widely. The amendment would add nothing to the Bill, and if the hon. Lady accepts my reassurance of a commitment to consultation, she will conclude that it is not necessary.

Patsy Calton: That satisfies our concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: With you indulgence, Mr. Pike, I should like to debate clause 70 stand part with arguments relating to the clause 71 stand part debate. That would help the Committee. If you agree, I will not seek to catch your eye during the debate on clause 71 to repeat my arguments.

Peter Pike: I accept that, and hope that other hon. Members will do the same. If they do, I will not allow a debate on clause 71 stand part.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful. We have had a debate on the importance of implementing the review, and of the Government being faithful to it. We have said that the purpose of the Belfast agreement was to set up a review, and that it would be wholly unreasonable to expect the Government neither to abide by its terms nor to introduce the necessary legislation to implement it. However, that is what the clause is inviting us to do in respect of community safety.
 I commend the section of the review on community safety, and it is a pity that the Government have chosen to ignore it. The review's specific recommendation is not for community safety partnerships, but for community safety and policing partnerships. An important debate is going on—I accept that, as the Government say, it is current—about how, and by which bodies, community safety strategy is to be implemented. The conclusions and recommendations of the review represent a strong strand of argument that the local authority structure, and the geographic district structure, should be part of the community safety strategy and, therefore, that community safety should be implemented by community safety and policing partnerships, thus 
 rolling the district policing partnerships into the community safety partnerships. 
 I am convinced by the logic of the arguments and by my experience as a Member of Parliament in the county of Surrey. Satisfactory arrangements for dealing with community safety have resulted in the overlap that has been achieved since the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was passed. The police boundaries in Surrey now align precisely with the boundaries of the county of Surrey. That means that there is effective co-operation not only at county but at district and borough levels in dealing with issues of community safety. 
 For example, discussions now take place on housing matters, because the troublemakers in the community—those people who cause rows with their neighbours—whom the housing authorities deal with are precisely the same people who come to the attention of the police. It is very important to align the responsibilities for community safety with police responsibilities. 
 Police in Northern Ireland have told me that the legislation that the Government are proposing, instead of a review, is wholly unwelcome, because the local police commander of a district must agree a policing strategy with his district policing partnership. It is unrealistic to expect him then to look to a totally different body for community safety. 
 The Government have acknowledged the difficulties in this area. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he said: 
''Another subject on which we have received a number of submissions is community safety. There was widespread support in the local government sector for a provision in the Bill to give councils clear statutory authority to undertake community safety work. I very much welcome the councils' intention to play an active role in community safety, which will contribute to reducing crime and the fear of crime in their localities. In order to facilitate that, I am minded, subject to consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, to bring forward an amendment on those lines.''—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 646.]
 I have been waiting in hope for the Government to come forward with an amendment on community safety in order to make sense of their provisions. Instead, they have simply taken the powers in the widest possible sense. By doing that, they will reinforce rather than allay concern about what community safety partnerships mean and exactly who will be involved in them. 
 There is an on-going and important debate in Northern Ireland about community restorative justice and schemes in the unofficial sector of justice, which obviously apply mainly in republican areas, but in some loyalist areas as well the writ of the police does not run. Community restorative justice schemes range from the basest example of justice, administered by a bullet to somebody's kneecap, to schemes that—in the absence of anything else, and if I were to take a wholly pragmatic judgment—might actually contribute in some way to community safety. Some community restorative justice schemes have tried to establish an oversight board not moderated by the Government but by non-governmental organisations; for example, 
 the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. However, the concern must be that the powers that the Government are taking will give them the ability to bring those schemes within the remit of community safety, which would alarm members of the community in Northern Ireland. 
 I note that Government amendment No. 302 to clause 88 would ensure that any future changes that the Government might make would have to be done by affirmative resolution. At least the Government have gone some way to addressing our concerns on that matter. It would have been utterly and wholly unacceptable if the Government had decided to take those powers without further reference to Parliament. However, the Government have gone far enough. In particular, I do not understand why the Bill does not deliver the review. From experience gathered elsewhere, it seems quite proper for the district policing and community safety partnerships to run alongside each other, based on local authority boundaries. In that way, there would be a clear responsibility within the local structure, and one would know exactly who was dealing with what. One of the criticisms in the review is that that responsibility is not clearly set out.

Des Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman conceding that the strict model that is recommended does not reflect the partnership that he expects community safety partnerships to have? The strict model that is recommended translates the membership of the district policing partnership into the membership of the community safety partnership. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it is deficient to that extent.

Crispin Blunt: I would draw the Minister's attention to the Government's conclusions in the implementation report. They state:
''The Government strongly supports the idea of local structures to drive forward an inter-agency approach to community safety, and intends to consult closely with the Executive on the way ahead.''
 They then say: 
''Accordingly, the Government believes that it would be premature to make firm decisions now on the future shape of local community safety arrangements.''
 The arrangements that the Government want to put in place are extremely important. They should be subject to primary legislation. It is not acceptable for them to take such wide powers by a series of measures and then say, ''Oh, but they will be done by statutory instrument and will be subject to affirmative resolution when we come forward with the details.'' The Government have had a long time to consider the proposals. If they are not ready now—if it is premature because of difficulties in this area—they should wait until they are ready and come to Parliament with properly thought out proposals. They should not give themselves the power under the Bill to bring forward proposals later. 
 I am happy to accept the Government's conclusion that it is premature to come forward with those proposals. It is therefore not appropriate for the Government to take such wide powers under the Bill. If the House were more effective in dealing with subsidiary legislation, we could have a greater debate, 
 but it is not. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Those important powers should not be taken under statutory instruments. That should be done by primary legislation, which can be properly debated. It is terribly important that those arrangements are properly set up. 
 With the absence of detail and with no further Government amendments likely, as the Secretary of State hinted on Second Reading, the Opposition will oppose clauses 70 and 71 stand part.

Seamus Mallon: I wish to make one or two observations. The points made by the hon. Member for Reigate were relevant, but I ask him to consider that it may not be possible to write that script for some time. Much as I would like to agree with him, I want the Government to be tied down to firm and specific proposals, and I shall tell the Committee why.
 I represent the constituency of Newry and Armagh, which contains south Armagh. There are parts of Northern Ireland where enthusiasm for the Good Friday agreement and all that it entails is not as strong as it might be and as it possibly will be. There are parts of what would be termed, erroneously in my view, loyalist areas of Northern Ireland, where the same would apply. The most appalling examples of justice, in inverted commas, is meted out by those who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner. 
 The script—the detail—will have to be painstakingly written. That is why I have been so adamant in trying to ensure a feeling of change. We need the right attitude towards the future, so that at least as a community we can start putting those building blocks together, one on top of the other. It will take a considerable time to do that, and to do it well, but the final product will be the answer to many of the political problems in the north of Ireland and many of the divided attitudes there. The final answer as regards policing will be arrived at in the same manner. 
 The community, by which I mean the people of Northern Ireland, and the various subgroups within it on which we tend to put labels, will have the opportunity to create for themselves, with the political process, a whole new beginning. That is why I tend to agree with the Government at this stage. It is probably too soon to start painting in the detail, until the broad scene begins to be characterised by hope and belief that can be developed and fostered.

Crispin Blunt: When the Government are in a position to paint in the detail, they can place the necessary legislation before Parliament. None of the hon. Gentleman's arguments deal with the fact that the Government are taking the powers in the measure prematurely. That is the burden of my argument.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but there is a job of work to be done in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive with regard to community reaction and where the community stands in relation to these issues. The problems surrounding Holy Cross school are a prime example. The wider community, including those living in the area, were precluded or excluded from having the influence that would have been desirable.
 In normal circumstances, and had we been further down the line, I would have been in full agreement with the hon. Member for Reigate. However, it may not be possible to paint in the detail until other things fall into place and a broader and more general acceptance that we are serious about change emerges. When that starts to take root, it will be much easier to work on the details, whether that work is done in this Parliament or taken on board by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, as I hope that it will be. That will be the acid test.

Lady Hermon: As we will not have a separate debate on clause 71, I want to raise a matter concerning the composition of the local community safety partnerships. I invite the Minister to respond to points on clause 71 when he responds to clause 70. Would that be in order?

Peter Pike: I said that I did not want to go through the same arguments again on clause 71. There is an amendment to clause 71, but I would be prepared to allow a debate on any points that do not apply to it. If there is to be a clause stand part debate on clause 71, I would expect it to be much reduced because of what this debate has covered. I hope that that helps you, Lady Hermon.

Lady Hermon: Do you want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Mr. Pike?

Peter Pike: I cannot totally eliminate a clause stand part debate on clause 71 yet, but I do not want to cover the same ground again.

Lady Hermon: I do not want to do so.

Des Browne: I shall try to assist the hon. Lady. Amendment No. 241, in the event that it is moved by the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) or for Montgomeryshire, will raise the issue that exercises her at the moment. If we have a debate on the composition of community safety group partnerships, I shall have something to say then.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's advice, and I shall reserve my remarks until the appropriate time.

Des Browne: I shall endeavour to deal with the serious issues that the hon. Member for Reigate raised. The Government seek to strike a balance between the position recommended in the review and the position that he espouses, which, for reasons that I shall come to in a moment, is closer to the Government's position in relation to the shape of the bodies that should deliver community safety.
 It would be inappropriate to seek to shape those agencies now, because it would require anticipating significant changes that are taking place in Northern Ireland. We do not know what those changes will bring. Despite all that and for the reasons to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh alluded, the Secretary of State seeks to take the powers now because some local councils want to deliver on community safety and are getting on with doing so. 
 They are rightly concerned that what they are doing should be supported by the shape of the legislation. 
 The Government have introduced provisions for consulted responses. We propose to ensure, in a careful fashion, the maximum consultation and the maximum opportunity for debate once the framework of the provisions has been formed. They will of necessity be interim provisions, as I shall explain. 
 Clause 70 requires the Secretary of State to devise a community safety strategy for Northern Ireland. Community safety is about reducing crime and the fear of crime. It involves measures to address not only criminal behaviour, but antisocial behaviour and other factors that affect people's perception of their safety. The strategy will set out key targets to be addressed by those working on community safety. It will also inform the local strategies produced by each of the local partnerships that will be established under clause 71. As I said to the hon. Member for Cheadle in an earlier debate, we will shortly publish a draft strategy for consultation. 
 Clause 71 contains powers for the Secretary of State to establish local community safety partnerships. As the hon. Member for Reigate said, a partnership-based approach goes to the heart of what community safety is about. He tells us that he has experience in his locality of its effectiveness and, from a different model in my locality, I accept that the sort of partnership that he describes is important. 
 A local partnership can tackle the unique concerns of an area with measures tailor made to meet the area's needs. Each partnership will conduct an audit for the area for which it is responsible to identify issues of local concern. Taking into account the results of that audit and the Northern Ireland-wide community safety strategy published by the Secretary of State, it will produce a plan for addressing community safety in that area.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Des Browne: I shall explain further before I give way.
 With respect to the shape of the local partnerships, the Government believe that it would be premature to make firm decisions. The review recommended that community safety policing partnerships be established not with partial composition but with the same composition as district policing partnerships. Those district policing partnerships have not yet been set up, so we cannot work with them, although we hope that they will be established soon. 
 For the reasons articulated by the hon. Member for Reigate, it is not clear whether that model would produce effective co-operation and partnership with agencies with responsibilities relevant to community safety. Bodies responsible for housing, social services, probation, policing, education and the environment are not presently members of policing partnerships. The hon. Gentleman argues for a community safety partnership that includes those very agencies. If we were to respond strictly to the review's recommendation, we should exclude a large number of agencies that the hon. Gentleman says should have 
 a role to play. Those agencies would be essential, because they would be called upon to deliver many local services.

Crispin Blunt: I understand the Minister's point, but in Surrey the organisation to which I referred sits not because legislation demands it, but because boundaries have been set up and people's interests are aligned. They have one point of contact and the police need only look in one direction in their relationship with the community.
 Of course, there will be difficulties in Northern Ireland. That is why the local administration review in Northern Ireland was asked to address the matter of where authority for housing would lie. Again, we can see from that example that it is premature to create powers for structures in such a controversial region before the review is completed and we know what the future local government structure will be and where powers will lie.

Des Browne: I think that the hon. Gentleman has the point, because he anticipates my second argument. Another reason why creating powers for structures would be premature is that the Northern Ireland Executive announced in their programme for government that they would establish a review of public administration. That is likely to result in significant changes to existing rules and responsibilities in organisations that could be expected to contribute to community safety. In view of that important development, which the criminal justice review was unable to take into account, it would not be sensible to fix long-term arrangements before the future shape of public administration in Northern Ireland becomes clear. I think that we are at one thus far.
 In the interim, community safety will be supported from the centre, but that will be an interim measure. Detailed proposals will be set out in the draft community safety strategy to which I referred and which is referred to in the clause. A key element will be to encourage the early formation of non-statutory community safety partnerships, building on current best practice to tackle relevant issues at local levels. In developing those arrangements, the Northern Ireland Office will consult departments on the scope for aligning the community safety partnerships with the new structure of local strategic partnerships established by the Executive. 
 Thus a significant amount of work remains to be done. The purpose of clauses 70 and 71 is not to give the Secretary of State powers that he will exercise willy-nilly, but to enable him to have a statutory structure in which he can respect and incorporate existing good practice in the interim and engage in necessary discussions, such as open discussions with the Executive. Unless that consultation takes place, in the context anticipated by clauses 70 and 71, we shall not be able to establish the structure. Given that much of the delivery of safety is to be by those who exercise transferred powers, it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to set out a shape for them, even in the interim. The Secretary of State does not seek to exercise the powers without proper scrutiny and discussion; he does so in order that we can have the 
 consultation in a changing environment, recognising the fact that people want the community safety work to take place in the interim. They cannot wait for the length of time suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate to have their communities made safer. 
 We have given as much detail as we can in the primary legislation of the Government's current thinking and will come back with proposals that can be debated. In that context, I ask the Committee to support the clauses as they are drafted. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Local community safety partnerships

Patsy Calton: I beg to move amendment No. 241, in page 60, line 29, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that each partnership includes elected representatives and persons drawn from relevant statutory agencies and voluntary and community organisations.'.
 In his comments on amendment No. 240, the Minister has reassured both me and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire that his intention is to consult as widely as possible. It follows that the partnership will include a wide range of partners. I accept the Minister's argument that he is not in a position to establish the shape, and his assurance that he intends the partnership to be as widely drawn from the community as possible.

Lady Hermon: Patience is one of those rare virtues that I might not have. However, I have been patient since clause 70 and we are now considering clause 71. It was a pleasure to hear during the previous debate that the Minister had found that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could be consulted about acting jointly.
 I was reminded by the contribution of the hon. Member for Reigate that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 dedicated an entire schedule, running to five pages, to the composition of district policing partnerships. I am concerned that, so much detail having been given on that occasion, we are being asked to approve a provision in this Bill for membership of local community safety partnerships to be specified by order made by the Secretary of State. That is unnecessarily vague. I should like to tease out what sort of membership the Minister has in mind and to address the concern in communities in Northern Ireland that paramilitaries could use this as an avenue to influence and to become part of community safety partnerships. A lot of trouble was taken in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act to ensure that that could not happen. I should like to see its provisions repeated in this legislation.

Des Browne: There are two ways in which the amendment can be approached. There are those who encourage a partnership and a broad approach—that is the position of those who drafted the amendment and who seem to be reassured that the Secretary of State intends to be inclusive and to generate a partnership that properly reflects those who should be involved in determining the shape of the application
 for a strategy for community safety. There is no one-size-fits-all model of how community safety should operate in Northern Ireland. The order-making powers are necessary because we have to ensure maximum flexibility to tailor the delivery of work in the field of community safety to the needs of each community.
 I have already made it clear that the changes, post the review recommendations, have introduced new levels of uncertainty, which were principally generated by the Executive's review of local administration. That made it inappropriate to set out the shape of community safety policing partnerships or community safety partnerships in the way in which the hon. Member for North Down suggested. That will need to be done once the review recommendations have been implemented and there is a settled environment in which the partnerships can operate. Whether that will be done in Parliament or whether the Assembly will do it depends on when the review concludes and when its recommendations are implemented.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister say whether those with criminal convictions will be eligible to sit on community safety partnerships? It would be enormously helpful if he could clarify that one point of uncertainty.

Des Browne: I am almost certain that such issues will be dealt with in the forthcoming consultations and the legislation that comes before Parliament, which is when the matter can be debated. Obviously, the Secretary of State expects the shape of the community safety partnerships to include the police and representatives from those services to which I have already referred, which will be expected to deliver the plan. Clearly, the local community will need to be represented and we shall need to engage with its representatives in those debates. The consultation will take place and recommendations, which we shall have the opportunity to debate, will be made.

Patsy Calton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister has not reassured me. We did not divide on clause 70 because who are we to stop him having legislative power to have a community strategy? I am sure that he does not need primary legislation for that. The hon. Member for North Down made it clear that there is a lack of detail in clause 71. Rather than taking the powers now, it would be appropriate for the Government to return to the House to seek the powers in primary legislation when they are clearer about the answers to our questions. We therefore oppose the clause.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Appeals in small claims cases

Des Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 299, in page 62, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 35 and insert—
'(a) after sub-paragraph (a) insert— 
 ''(ab) any party may appeal on a question of law to a judge (not being a deputy judge) against any order, decision or determination;'', 
 (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for the words from ''by the High Court'', onwards substitute ''by the Court of Appeal, state for the determination of the Court of Appeal any question of law arising out of an award made by the district judge in dealing with the claim unless an appeal on the question has been brought under sub-paragraph (ab);'','.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 300 and 301.

Des Browne: This group of amendments removes an undesirable side effect resulting from changes to the appeals process for small claims cases. The Northern Ireland civil justice reform group recommended that appeals relating to any question of law arising from an award made in a small claims court should go to the Court of Appeal, rather than the High Court. In addition, the group recommended that there should be a right of appeal from a small claims court to a county court on a point of law, regardless of whether an award was made. It was intended that those rights of appeal should be both exhaustive and exclusive. If a party appealed on a point of law to the county court judge and was unsuccessful, he should not attempt to appeal on the same point of law to the Court of Appeal. However, the wording of clause 73(2) as drafted does not fully reflect that intention.
 Amendment No. 299 and the two consequential amendments correct that and reflect the reform group's recommendation by preventing an overlap in the appeal routes. I ask that the amendments be made. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 300, in page 62, leave out line 37 and insert '(ab) and (b)'. 
 No. 301, in page 62, line 39, leave out '(4)(ba)' and insert '(4)(ab)'.—[Mr. Browne.] 
 Clause 73, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Time limit for cases stated by county court

Des Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 63, line 4, leave out from 'days'',' to end of line 6.
 Article 61(2) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 presently provides for an appeal from a county court to the Court of Appeal by way of a case stated to be commenced within 14 days of the relevant decision being given. The civil justice reform group recommended that the appeal period be extended to 21 days. That is provided for by clause 74, which helps to secure the group's overall objective of a more accessible civil justice system. The clause goes on to provide that the appeal period can be reduced at the court's discretion. However, it is considered that such a general discretion could create uncertainty. Moreover, it is not reflective of the other appeal arrangements in the county court tier. Accordingly, the amendment provides for the removal of that provision. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 75 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 75 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Powers and duties of court securities officers

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 65, line 22, at end insert—
'(d) arrest any person in any court house, and must act in accordance with any general or specific instructions which have been given to him (whether orally or in writing) by a person in authority.'.
 This is a small but important amendment, the case for which was put to me repeatedly in Northern Ireland. Given the police's tendency to move away from court rooms, people were certain that circumstances had arisen in which court staff had not been able to arrest people. One resident magistrate to whom I spoke had a particular example in mind. He had had direct experience and asked me what he could do if an arrest needed to be made. It would be sensible for the power of arrest to go to members of the court staff acting on the direction of the authority in the court. The power would appertain only within the jurisdiction of the court, and then only on the direct instruction of a person in authority. This is a sensible amendment, and I hope that the Government will allow it.

Des Browne: Small but perfectly formed the amendment may be, but I am afraid that I must
 disappoint the hon. Member for Reigate. The best way to explain why is by reference to the powers that the Bill already provides for security officers.
 Under clause 79, court security officers have the powers to search persons entering a courthouse and to exclude or remove any person who refuses to permit such a search or who refuses to surrender an article that the court security officer reasonably believes may jeopardise the maintenance of order in the courthouse. They may also exclude or remove any person from a courthouse or restrain any person in a courthouse where reasonably necessary to maintain order. Court security officers also have the power, as officers of the court, to detain a person misbehaving in court until the court has risen. 
 The clause also provides that a court security officer must act in accordance with any instructions from a person in authority. That can be a judge, coroner or magistrate exercising any function in the courthouse, or a member of the court service who is authorised to give him instructions. The powers in the clause are based on the powers of equivalent court security officers in England and Wales under sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which do not contain provision for the power of arrest. We are not aware of any need being demonstrated for the power in England and Wales, and I hasten to add that the provisions in England and Wales are contained in an Act passed in 1991. We all know who was in government then. 
 Court security officers have powers of arrest in relation to more serious offences under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, in particular article 26. We believe that the Bill gives court security officers sufficient powers to enable them to maintain order in the court room or surrounding court premises. As the Bill already provides that court security officers must act in accordance with instructions given by a person in authority, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. The Government have properly considered the matter, and I imagine that if there is a problem in the future, they will come back and address it. As such, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock till Thursday 14 February at half-past Nine o'clock.